Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

Is doubting sinful?

If you have ever asked this question, you’re not alone. It’s an important question because doubt is part of the human experience. Therefore, Christians should ponder the question and seek to find out if God condones his people to have doubts.

If so, to what extent? What are the boundaries if doubt in itself is not sinful? What should God’s people do with their doubts?

Before we get too far, let’s define some terms:[1]

Doubt: 1) verb. To be undecided or uncertain. 2) noun. A feeling of uncertainty about the truth, reality, or nature of something.
Unbelief: noun. The state or quality of not believing; skepticism, especially in matters of religion.
Faith (or belief): noun. 1) confidence or trust in a person or thing. 2) belief about someone or something with good reason. 3) belief that is not based on proof.

For most Christians, it is clear that the Church does not have a positive attitude toward doubt. Many Christians have left the faith altogether from festering doubts which were never addressed because they felt there was no safe space in the Church to make their concerns known.[2]

Indeed, in recent years, the Church has, by and large, neglected to seriously consider the question of whether doubt (or asking questions) is sinful.

The result has been damaging: Those who have doubts and questions don’t trust the Church enough to be honest and open. If there is one place in the world Christians should feel safe exposing their doubt, it’s with the Church. Rather, they go outside the Church to ask their questions, where they are welcomed with the open arms of a tolerant, inclusive, and diverse world.

Maybe this is your story. Maybe you have doubts in the back of your mind, but you feel like addressing them will make you a bad Christian or make God mad at you. Maybe you know people whose doubt led to deconversion.

That would understandably cause fear in anyone. Please hear that you are not alone. There is hope in Jesus, and you will see how addressing your doubt is actually what will keep your faith strong in the long run.

With some exceptions, the Church has sidestepped the question of doubt by labeling all doubt as sinful, setting doubt in direct opposition with faith. Hence, the common mantras such as “just have faith” and “don’t ask questions” are believed without any reservation as biblical truth.

Taking a step back and examining the question of doubt is valuable because it forces us to ask ourselves if our theology is accurately reflecting the true teachings of Scripture. Examining our beliefs, which we often put little to no thought toward, is critical if we want to grow in our knowledge, understanding, and love of God and others.

The Source of Doubt

When having doubts about faith, we first have to ask, “Where did this doubt come from?” Identifying the source of doubt will help you determine how to deal with it. All doubt is spiritual, but there are two “categories” of doubt: emotional doubt and intellectual doubt.

Emotional Doubt

In short, emotional doubt is caused by an emotional impact on your life. For example, when people experience the deep loss of a loved one, the emotional impact causes them to question God’s love, goodness, or his existence altogether. You may have this doubt yourself, and that’s okay.

A good test to see if doubt is caused by an emotional impact is to ask, “What is my primary emotion toward God when I think about this?” If it’s anger or resentment or grief, it’s probably emotional doubt. When addressing this doubt, you would seek assurance that Christianity is good.

Intellectual Doubt

Intellectual doubt deals with what you do or don’t know about God. In other words, intellectual doubt is focused on facts rather than pure emotion. Intellectual doubt can indeed cause some emotions, but in this case, the source of the doubt is intellectual while the effect of the doubt is emotional.

For this doubt to be addressed (which can also help emotional doubt), you would seek assurance that Christianity is true. Again, ask the question, “What is my primary emotion toward God when I think about this?” If it’s uncertainty or confusion, your doubt is probably intellectual.

Doubt, Faith, and Unbelief

As mentioned in the introduction, doubt is often used as the opposite of faith in the Church. However, this is not the case. The opposite of faith is unbelief. In the New Testament, the words “faith” and “believe” are the same in the original language (Greek). A good example is Romans 4:4:

Now to the one who works, pay is not credited as a gift, but as something owed. But to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.

In the English language, “believes” and “faith” are different words, yet in the Greek language, they are the same. “Believes” is the verb form (pisteuō), and “faith” is the verb form (pistis). When we say we have faith in Christ, we are synonymously saying we believe in Christ. (Just as important, when we say we believe in Christ, it’s not merely a cognitive belief or recognition, as if we are saying we believe that, say, air exists. Rather, we are saying that we believe in Jesus and align our lives in accordance with that belief. It changes who we are from the inside out.)

How does it follow that doubt is the opposite of faith? Doubt is uncertainty about something. Unbelief is a conviction that something isn’t true, while faith is a conviction (or assurance) that something is true. In other words, doubt is the middle ground of faith and unbelief.

The Direction of Doubt

It is hard to see how doubt is sinful when one reflects on it long enough. As mentioned in the opening, it’s part of the human experience. People are going to doubt no matter what. The sin is not the doubt. The sin is what you do with the doubt, or where you decided to let the doubt take you.

We have seen how doubt is the middle ground, or tension, of faith and unbelief. This implies there is a decision to be made to go toward one (faith) or the other (unbelief). In our doubt, we can decide to go to many sources and voices that can lead us to unbelief. Conversely, many places are available to go to for answers to our doubts that keep our faith intact.

Ignoring doubts also can lead to unbelief. In the same way, we can choose to go to the object of our faith, Jesus, and see what he has to say about the matter.

Sin comes when our conclusions drive us toward unbelief. When our conclusions cause us to trust Christ and go deeper in our pursuit of God’s truth, our faith is strengthened, and the doubt is answered. In other words, sin enters the picture when uncertainty turns to unbelief, while stronger faith is produced when uncertainty turns to assurance.

Jesus’s Response to Doubt

In the seventh chapter of Luke’s Gospel, he records a story about John the Baptist. John the Baptist is regarded as a great spiritual model in the Church as he “prepared the way” for Jesus to begin his ministry.

Yet, in this story, John the Baptist is recorded as having doubts himself!

What? Not John the Baptist!

In this story, John was in prison for his faith. Things were not turning out as he hoped they would. It’s not a huge stretch to assume John knew he was nearing the end of his life, and understandably, he wanted assurance that Jesus was the Messiah. He wanted to make sure his death would not be in vain, since Jesus was not doing the things that the average Jew thought the Messiah would do at that time in Israel.

John decided to send some of his disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you the one to come, or should we expect someone else?”

Once his disciples asked Jesus the question, Jesus’s response was very telling. It was not, “You go tell John to just have faith and quit asking questions! Doubting is sinful!”

Instead, Jesus’s response was to “go and tell John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised…”

Jesus did not want them to have blind faith in who he was. The point of his miracles was to point to the fact that he is “the one who is to come.” He provided evidence for the divine claims he made through his miracles. That’s what he pointed to when he was questioned.

Lastly, in verse 28, Jesus said about John, who had just doubted him, that “among those born of women, none is greater than John.” Even after doubting and needing assurance, Jesus commends John the Baptist!

Conclusion

Although doubt is seen as a negative in a large portion of the Church, be encouraged that the Lord’s attitude about doubt is very different. You aren’t a “bad Christian” for doubting. I have a podcast and blog aimed at providing reasons for the hope that we have in Christ, yet I wake up some mornings and question if it is true, or at least if some of my central beliefs about who God is are true.

I’ve learned to take my doubts, questions, and concerns to the feet of Jesus. If I go anywhere else, the answer I receive will likely lead me away from Christ. This does not mean we can’t get helpful insight from other resources (that’s what you’re doing right now!).

Other resources are good, and God can use them for our spiritual growth and understanding. These are resources that reflect the true teachings of Scripture. However, when we do so, our hearts and minds should be in submission the lordship of Christ to direct us and give us discernment when we do go to those resources.

That’s why it is critical to know Scripture for ourselves: to be able to discern what’s true and false in the world. It’s also critical to pray for the Lord’s wisdom and help in seeking answers. This is a practical way to bring your doubts to the Lord.

Be assured, brother and sisters, when you doubt, you are still a child of the Living God. When you take your doubts to him who created you, he will supply you with whatever answer your heart needs. Sometimes we may not like the answers to certain doubts.

However, every day, every Christian must answer the same question: who has ultimate authority in my life? Myself and my desires, or Christ?

In most cases, he knows what we need better than we do. Be encouraged that when you have doubt, you can let it be known, for our Savior invites you to bring them into the light so that he can assure you of all things concerning himself.

Amen.

Reliable resources to start addressing doubt:

CrossExamined.org

Cold Case Christianity

Stand to Reason

Alisa Childers

Sean McDowell

[1] Definitions adapted from dictionary.com.

[2] Ed Jarrett, “Can a Christian Doubt God and Still Have Faith?” https://www.christianity.com/wiki/salvation/can-a-christian-doubt-god-and-still-have-faith.html.

Was God’s Original Creation Perfect?

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

by Bob Perry

There is, and probably always will be, a debate going on between sincere Christians about the age of the Universe. I think I’ve made my position on that issue very clear. But at the core of the disagreement between the so-called “Old Earth” (OE) and “Young Earth” (YE) Creationists is their respective views of “Death before the Fall” of Adam and Eve. I fully understand the stridency on the side of my YE friends in this regard. After all, this topic is vitally important to our understanding of the entire plan of salvation. But the YE paradigm insists that the original creation was a Perfect Paradise in every way. I think they’re dead wrong about that. And my reasons are theological. Was God’s original creation perfect? I think it was. But not in the way my YE friends insist it was. It wasn’t a perfect paradise, free of death and suffering. But it was perfectly designed to achieve God’s eternal purposes. That’s a far different thing.

The Meaning of God’s “Very Good” Decree

At the center of this debate is what God meant when He declared His creation to be “very good” in Genesis 1:31. On the YE view, there is no room for interpretation of this phrase. The reasoning is straightforward. Death isn’t good. And if you think the Earth had been around for a few billion years before Adam & Eve showed up, the obvious implication is that there would have been a whole lot of “death before the fall.” God would never have created such a place. He certainly wouldn’t have called it “very good.”

Even worse, if there was death before the fall, that seems to negate the very reason that humanity needed a Redeemer. Romans 5:12 states very plainly that “… sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin …” In other words, there was no death before the fall of Adam & Eve. To say there was is to ultimately negate the very reason for which Christ had to die on the cross!

This is a big problem that needs to be addressed. I get it. And that’s why I am empathetic to the objection to an old universe with lots of death before the fall. We have to be very clear and careful about how we approach this issue.

The “Perfect Paradise Paradigm”

To do that, we should first look at a summary of the YE position. In his book, Peril in Paradise (available below), author Mark Whorton lays out five basic tenets of what he calls the YE “Perfect Paradise Paradigm.”

When God declared His finished creation “very good,” He meant that it was perfect in every conceivable way.
Eden was the embodiment of the Creator’s ideal intentfor His creation.
Man’s sin thwarted God’s plan, shattered His ideal intent, and ruined all of His perfect creation.
God introduced the physical death of man and animals as a punishment for sin.
God instituted the plan of redemption to reverse the effects of Adam’s sin and restore all things back to their original intent.

This is an outline of the view most of us have probably learned about the Garden of Eden in Genesis 1. I know it’s what I was taught. But the more I’ve studied the issue, the more I found it wanting.

Problems With A Perfect Paradise

To be direct, the first point in the list above is obviously false. The creation was not perfect in every conceivable way. I say this for a few reasons …

Satanwas in the garden
The garden contained the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”

But 1 Corinthians 2:9 tells us that, “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.”

If that’s the case (and I believe it is), the Garden of Eden could not have been a “perfect paradise.” Not if something far better is coming in the future. And there’s more:

Adam was always required to tend to the Garden — the fall did not impose that work on him, it just made his work more
The curse on Eve did not originate the pain of childbirth, it increasedthe pain she would experience.

For each of these reasons, it seems pretty clear that the garden could not have been a place of “absolute perfection.” Satan, and evil, and pain cannot exist in any place that God says is “perfect.” But there is an even more obvious problem with this notion of a perfect paradise.

Words Mean Things

The more obvious problem is right there in the words. In fact, the problem is so obvious it’s hard to imagine how it ever became an issue in the first place. God said that his creation was “very good.” But …

“Very good” does not mean “perfect.”

The Hebrew phrase translated as “very good” here is: meod tob. This phrase occurs elsewhere in the Bible. But Genesis 1:31 is the only place in Scripture where some have interpreted it to mean “absolute perfection.” Why would that be?

I submit it is because we have been taught to assume the YE paradigm is true. And if it is, the Perfect Paradise Paradigm also has to be true.

I don’t know how else to put it.

Perfect Paradise Assumptions

No doubt, the Garden of Eden was a unique and specially protected place that defies our imagination. But the flaw in the Perfect Paradise Paradigm is that it assumes these conditions also existed outside the Garden. Think about that for a second. Why would the Garden need to be specially protected if the entire creation around it was also “perfect?” Secondly, where is the Scriptural evidence to support the idea that the entire Earth was a perfect paradise?

It is nowhere to be found.

There are several other logical difficulties that stem from this idea. And they are not trivial.

Animals Cursed by Death

The Perfect Paradise Paradigm demands that there was no death of any kind (including animals) before the fall. It insists that death only invaded the perfect paradise when God imposed it as a penalty after the fall of Adam & Eve. But, once again, this idea is foreign to the text. Look at Romans 5:12 again. It tells us specifically that death was imposed on “all men.” It doesn’t mention anything about animals, or anything else in the creation. Those who defend the Perfect Paradise Paradigm always quote the beginning of this verse to make the point that ” … sin entered the world [through one man], and death through sin.” They rarely acknowledge the remainder of the verse that specifically states “… and in this way death came to all men.”

My point is simple. There could well have been death in the plant and animal kingdom outside the Garden before the fall of man. Nothing in Scripture prohibits it. The only critical issue regarding death is that it was a penalty God imposed on human beings who willfully rebelled against Him. As human beings are the only moral agents with free will on the planet, it is only human beings who received the penalty for violating God’s moral law.

Carnivores

It’s pretty obvious that for animals to eat, other animals must die. But if the world was a perfect paradise with no death, it follows that there could not have been carnivorous activity either. In other words, all the animals that we now recognize as carnivores must have been herbivores before the fall. The perfect paradise model insists that these animals all changed their “behavior” by “degenerating” into carnivorous activity after the fall.

But, as Mark Whorton points out, there are enormous differences between carnivores and herbivores.

“Carnivorous digestive systems are fundamentally distinct from herbivore systems. Herbivores are able to digest the cellulose that forms the cell walls of plant while carnivores are not. Carnivores can survive without a stomach. Herbivores cannot. Carnivores can survive without microorganisms; herbivores cannot. Carnivores can survive without plant food. Herbivores cannot.”

A carnivore like a lion is a finely-tuned eating machine that is built with specific instincts, musculature, anatomy, physiology, and biochemical makeup. These are fundamentally different animals than the herbivorous creatures that would have existed prior to the fall under the Perfect Paradise model.

Defense Mechanisms

Other creatures like the bombardier beetle have always been favorites of creationists (of all stripes) because of the incredible design they exhibit in their ability to defend themselves. But why would such a creature need to defend itself before the fall if there was no death or violence to threaten it? Did a porcupine not have quills, a skunk not spray, sea urchins not have spines, or did snakes not have venom and fangs? The list of preposterous suggestions goes on and on. The design of these creatures makes no sense if they originated in a world without threats or danger.

Immune Systems

According to the Perfect Paradise Paradigm, there would have been no need for immune systems in animals because there was nothing to threaten them. Living things had nothing to fear from death through disease. Yet, these kinds of systems are highly sophisticated and built into the physical makeup of every living creature. They depend on specific physiology and use the energy resources of the body in a very integrated way. Did these systems just spontaneously appear after the fall?

Extreme Habitats

There are countless examples of organisms of all kinds that are specially adapted to the environments in which they live. Not only so, but these are parts of larger ecosystems that are also specially designed to support the food chains of their inhabitants. In a non-threatening, perfect paradise this makes absolutely no sense. If the entire planet was one giant, perfect ecosystem, there would be no need for any creature to be specially equipped to survive in its home environment.

The Most Troubling Implication

There are plenty more examples. And all of these are fatal flaws for the Perfect Paradise Paradigm. But there is one aspect of this way of thinking that is more troubling than anything we can observe in nature.

The most harmful aspect of the paradigm is the way it sabotages the sovereignty, omniscience, and character of God.

The Perfect Paradise Paradigm implies that God created what He thought was the perfect world for humanity to enjoy. He intended mankind to live pain-free in that world forever. But we humans shattered the perfect world He had created. Worse, God never saw it coming. He was caught off-guard. And when mankind threw him the ultimate curveball, God was forced to react. He had to institute a new plan of redemption to return the creation to the way He wanted it to be.

Human sin thwarted God’s intended purpose for the creation and forced Him to invoke Plan ‘B.’

Really?

A Better Understanding

There is a better way to understand all this. Mark Whorton calls it the Perfect Purpose Paradigm. On this view, the Garden of Eden is still a special, protected place. But being protected implies there was something it needed protection from. The lack of death inside the Garden is what made it special. The world outside the Garden was dangerous. But it was designed in exactly the way God needed it to be to achieve his ultimate purpose.

On this view, the incredibly integrated design we see in nature today was not the result of some Plan ‘B’ reaction on God’s part. God didn’t have to completely alter His original creation because of something we did to screw it up.

In His perfect omniscience and foreknowledge, He designed the world to be this way. He knew exactly how He would use it to serve His purposes when the time came. Where the Perfect Paradise view insists that suffering and evil defy God’s intentions, the Perfect Purpose view recognizes their place in the story.

Ironically, if Eden was the perfection God originally intended there would be no need for a Redeemer. But that’s why the Perfect Purpose Paradigm is a more accurate view of reality.

**The Perfect Purpose Paradigm**

We don’t know why, but evil pre-existed the creation. The rebellion of Lucifer and his minions played a part in it all. And God’s purpose in creating the world was to defeat that evil forever. Suffering and evil are part of the creation. But God allows them here for a little while as compared to eternity. They are part of what God uses to accomplish His eternal purpose. We can see how this plays out throughout the Bible in the lives of Job, Moses, Pharaoh, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, the nation of Israel, Paul, and, yes, even Jesus.

Under the Perfect Purpose Paradigm, God’s labeling the creation “very good” is a value judgment about the where and why of His eternal plan. On this view, “very good” means “perfectly suited to the purpose for which God intended it.” It makes more sense of the words of Scripture. And it aligns more with the reality we see in the world around us.

The destination is much more wonderful than our ability to enjoy this life alone. He designed the world to allow His image-bearers to experience darkness and evil so that we would hate it as much as we should. As much as he does.

As free-will beings, our mission, should we decide to accept it, is to choose to reject evil, thereby drain it of its power, and join with God in defeating it for good. And those — His church — who choose God over evil get to spend eternity with Him.

The real purpose of it all is for us to glorify God forever.

Our Ultimate Purpose

God’s plan of redemption is not a Plan ‘B.’ It was not instituted as a reaction to our unforeseen rebellion. Instead, it was the plan for God’s perfect purpose from before the beginning of time.

Suffering and evil are here for a little while. They serve only to lead us to accomplish an eternal purpose. That purpose was not to create a perfect world. It was to perfect us so that we would be worthy of spending eternity with God.

To answer the original question, God’s creation was indeed perfect. But it was perfect in a different way than most of us have been led to believe. It was perfect because it was built to prepare us for glory in the new heaven and new earth.

That’s a perfect end. And that’s how God has always intended it to be.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3LEzW9e

May 4, 2022/by Guest

The Need for Apologetics in the Local Church

Apologetics for Parents, Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Maggie Hendrick

Apologetics, when done with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15), is beneficial in evangelism as we see the Holy Spirit use it time and time again in the Scriptures through Paul’s “reasoning” and “persuading” to draw souls to the Lord. However, in this article, I will show how apologetics in the local church has other benefits: equipping the saints and preventing apostasy. Of course our entire Christian walk should be dedicated toward evangelism; that is a given. But, not to sound too inwardly focused, I want to show that apologetics has benefits for the believers themselves and why the local church is the best source to implement them.

Apologetics is Useful in:

Making Disciples

The Great Commission in Matthew 28 commands believers to make disciples, not converts. This is an important distinction to make for apologetics as it has many benefits and goals. We know apologetics can be used in evangelism to make converts as Paul did throughout Acts, but it doesn’t stop there. The church needs to stir up one another to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24), equip the saints for the work of ministry (Ephesians 4:12), help them hold their faith firm to the end (Hebrews 3:14), and encourage them to love God with their minds (Matthew 22:37). Apologetics can be used in all of these, not confined to a classroom or specialty ministry, but all throughout the local church.

The local church is essential in equipping believers. But what are we to be equipped with? Ephesians 6 tells us to put on the WHOLE armor of God so we can stand against the devil’s schemes. Apologetics helps to strengthen our faith, “which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one” and helps us “stand firm” with the “belt of truth.” Many times local churches focus on “the breastplate of righteousness” and the “helmet of salvation”, but we need the full armor of God.

The church stands on God’s Word, and they must compare everything to it. Apologetics is another aid in helping us know our Creator through studying his creation and loving Him with our minds. Apologetics does not replace Bible Study or preaching, it’s a helpful tool to be used simultaneously to produce richer study and preaching. Thus, it is not only useful in evangelism as Paul used it, but also through making stronger, wiser disciples with a faith built on solid ground.

Evangelism+

Apologetics isn’t just used in the moment of evangelism, but also leading up to it. This is a huge benefit of incorporating apologetics into the church. Fear cripples their congregants more than pastors want to admit. Of course, no matter how much we know, we may still feel nervous before sharing the gospel. However, the confidence in being able to defend our faith, through apologetics, eases those fears and can lead to more gospel conversations and encounters with unbelievers. I experienced this very thing as a 16 year old girl headed to Utah to share my faith with Mormons. I knew very little, and never wanted to be the one initiating or talking in the conversations. The more I studied, my confidence and ability to share and defend my faith increased. This made me WANT to initiate conversations and continue sharing the gospel even when I got home. Having a congregation who can more effectively and clearly share the gospel, while increasing the number of times they actually share it, should be an encouragement for pastors to embrace apologetics.

If the focus of apologetics in a local church setting is geared towards benefitting believers (not just for reaching unbelievers) the church will have stronger congregants, who can better spur one another on to love and good works. This is because apologetics equips the saints to live out the Christian worldview outside of the church’s walls…which includes evangelism! It is not a means of which believers fight with one another over trivial matters, but rather used to sharpen one another to better withstand the false ideologies and evils of the world.

Preventing Apostasy

“As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away” Matthew 13:20-21

Another important aspect of a local church is to help the saints persevere and hold firm their faith to the end. Apologetics is a helpful tool in preventing apostasy. I have experienced this benefit of apologetics personally. Had I not attended a youth group so committed to equipping us prior to college, I would have been eaten alive at my college. Ultimately, being a Christian at a secular college is HARD. Our sinful hearts sometimes don’t “feel” like living out the Christian faith or even “want” to. But I felt like Peter, when asked by Jesus, if he would like to go away as well. Peter replies: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:68-69) It did not matter how I felt each day, the gospel was true, and my faith was built on truth and not feelings.

A local church may feel that they are growing and that their congregants are evangelizing, so apologetics isn’t needed. I would caution against such a belief because as much as apologetics helps to equip us to share the Good News, it also protects us. Even if it appears that everyone has a strong faith and aren’t wrestling with doubt, we know that many have left and will leave the faith because they don’t feel like they have a good reason to believe it’s true.

If we are not giving believers good reasons for their faith, it will be much easier for the world to shake it when life gets hard. While discussing apologetics as a way to train, William Lane Craig says: “Unfortunately, our churches have largely dropped the ball in this area. It’s insufficient for youth groups and Sunday school classes to focus on entertainment and simpering devotional thoughts. We’ve got to train our kids for war.”[1] The world is at war with us. This is why we need the full armor of God.

Apologetics aids us in formulating sufficient answers to the world’s tough questions. At some point (if not already), we will be faced with tough questions. If our faith resembles a blind faith, or is built upon feelings, it can be more easily shaken. Therefore, the local church must cultivate strong faiths in their congregants so that they “may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

How Might Pastors Incorporate Apologetics?

Everyone has questions. Only those who know everything won’t have questions, and that of course, is none of us. Even pastors and church leaders have questions…and questions are a good thing! The local church should encourage their congregation to ask questions at church so they can come alongside them in finding quality answers. Pastors ought to share questions they’ve had, how they found answers (within the church body and not the world), and even invite his congregants to ask him questions to emphasize the benefits of asking and faithfully seeking truth. This type of culture within a church will lead to loving God with their minds, and not shrink in doubt. After all, we know JESUS IS THE TRUTH and therefore know we have true and genuine answers to give. No need to be scared of the questions when truth is on our side.

Apologetics can be implemented in all teaching ministries at a local church. Of course they can do specific series on apologetic topics or host apologetic events, but apologetics can be brought into all areas without disregarding expository preaching. Find time in all teaching moments at church to pull in some apologetics. Even if it isn’t blatant apologetics, it is about creating a culture where congregants can grow in their knowledge of the Lord, while getting their questions or doubts addressed within the church walls.

If Not for You, Do it for them

As I have discussed many benefits to apologetics in a local church and practical ways to implement it, I cannot stress enough that apologetics must be taught early. Apologetics isn’t just for adults and shouldn’t be confined to the main pulpit. It shouldn’t even be confined to college or high school students. Apologetics begins when children’s questions begin. As a mother to four young children, I can attest to how early that begins!

We should not answer any of our children’s questions with “because the Bible says so” for the same reason we rejected our own parents’ “reason” of “because I said so”. These types of explanations didn’t satisfy us then, and they certainly won’t satisfy our children, ESPECIALLY if the question is pertaining to big issues of life and not just why they have to make their bed. John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle write:

“Challenges that undermine the authority of God’s Word cannot go unanswered. And we cannot merely assert that the Bible is the authoritative book from God and hope kids will simply take our word on the matter. Young people must understand the nature of biblical authority. They must have good reasons to trust the Bible as God’s Word.”[2]

We have better answers than “because the Bible says so”, so let’s give them!

Another important reason to start young is because we need to begin before we feel an urgent need to. As J. Warner Wallace writes, “According to the statistics, young Christians decide to abandon the church long before they ever tell anyone and usually before they leave the home of their parents…That’s why it’s so important for us to start early- even before your kids are verbalizing their questions.”[3] Many times, parents get into apologetics when it is too late. Even if your children do ask you their questions, if we fail to give sufficient answers, they won’t stop asking questions, they’ll just stop asking YOU questions. We must steer them to the truth in a satisfying and complete way, or we will see them seek answers elsewhere.

Conclusion

Apologetics is needed in the local church, in all ministries, and for all ages. Even if a believer doesn’t personally believe they need apologetics or good reasons for their own faith, why take the risk and not guard themselves against apostasy that the Bible warns against regularly? And even if they ultimately don’t need apologetics for themselves, someone they love does. And in order to be a wise “discipler”, we must have good answers to give or risk them turning to the world for answers.

We need apologetics in the local church to equip us to better know and love God with our minds, train and encourage us to evangelize, prepare us to better disciple young believers, and protect us (and others) from the deceitful ideologies of this world and falling into apostasy. The church is responsible for equipping their congregation, and thus, should implement apologetics regularly.

Now let us fasten on the belt of truth and get to work!

[1] William Lane Craig. “Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It?: Reasonable Faith.” Who Needs It? Reasonable Faith, www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/apologetics/christian-apologetics-who-needs-it/.

[2] John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle. A Practical Guide to Culture. David C. Cook, 2020. 309.

[3] Sean McDowell and J. Warner Wallace. So the Next Generation Will Know. David C Cook, 2019. 41.

c40000

Proverbs: Making Your Paths Straight Complete 9-part Series by Frank Turek DVD and Download

God’s Crime Scene for Kids by J. Warner Wallace and Susie Wallace (Book)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maggie is a stay-at-home wife and mother to her husband Curtis and children Troy (in heaven),Ty, Jay, Palin and Boyd. She received her BA in Religious Studies from Chapman University and her Masters in Christian Apologetics and Evangelism from Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. She currently serves as the Biblical Immersive Experience Coordinator at Maven where she has the joy of planning trips for Christian youth to share their faith with Mormons in Utah. Along with her love for Christian youth and Mormon ministry, she is a pro-life and adoption advocate. She has a deep love for babies and has been nicknamed “the baby whisperer”. You’ll likely find her snuggling on the couch with one of her kiddos while eating bacon and drinking a glass of chocolate milk (Nesquik of course).

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3kwocJS

May 3, 2022/by Guest

4 New Arguments for the Resurrection of Jesus

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian G. Chilton

For nearly ten years, I have been honored to bring you reasons for believing in the resurrection of Jesus. I now find myself at the end of a terminal degree in theological and apologetic studies.[1] For some, advanced education tends to cause one to doubt one’s position over time. However, that has not been the case for me and the resurrection of Jesus. Over the last few years, I have found five new compelling reasons for believing that the resurrection of Jesus was a legitimate historical event. These five arguments may or may not be new to the reader, but they became new to me through my research and are newer than some of the previous arguments given about the resurrection in previous articles. Without further ado, consider the following five new arguments for the resurrection of Jesus.

Unexpected Nature of the Resurrection

The first argument is one of the best pieces of evidence for the resurrection that I had never before considered. That is, no one in Jesus’s day expected the Messiah to rise from the dead. In Matthew’s Gospel, the Jewish leaders argue that the disciples stole the body of Jesus (Matt. 28:11–15). Of all the alternate theories of the resurrection, this is by far the most compelling. Regardless of whether one holds that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, invented the story, or feigned Jesus’s death, there is one aspect that skeptics fail to consider. No one in the first century anticipated the imminent resurrection of Jesus. This is evident in Jesus’s encounter with Martha at Lazarus’s tomb. Recall that when Jesus asked Mary if she believed that Lazarus would rise from the dead, she said, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day” (Jn. 11:24). Martha’s response represented the typical position of the Pharisees and the Essenes. Josephus notes that the vast majority of the population in first-century Israel were Pharisees.[2]

N.T. Wright provides two reasons why the resurrection was unexpected in the first century. On the one hand, believers living in the times of Second Temple Judaism anticipated that the resurrection would bring about the “restoration of Israel … [and] the newly embodied life of all YHWH’s people.”[3] On the other hand, no one in the period connected the Messiah with resurrection.[4] The concept of the Messiah resurrecting on the third day, though it may be reflected in the OT texts to a degree, was not in any way expected by believers at this time. Thus, the lack of anticipation for a resurrection delivers a fatal blow to any theory that projects the early Christians as being those who staged such an experience. Why stage something that they did not believe would happen in the first place?

Multiple Independent Sources

When it comes to any event of history, it is important for one to possess multiple source attestation. The more eyes one has on an event, the more accurate the truth can be preserved. When it comes to the resurrection, we have multiple sources pointing to the resurrection of Jesus being a historical event. First, we have the four independent sources found in the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide unique accounts of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Matthew reports Jesus’s post-resurrection meeting with the disciples in Galilee. Mark reports the women at the tomb and their mysterious encounter with the angels at the tomb. Luke provides multiple accounts that are not preserved in the other Gospels, including the two disciples’ encounter with Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24:13–35). John affords multiple stories not included in the other Gospels, including Thomas’s encounter with Jesus (Jn. 20:24–29), Jesus’s encounter with the disciples on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus’s reinstatement of Peter (Jn. 21:15–19), and Peter asking Jesus about John’s ministry (Jn. 21:20–23).

In addition to the Gospels, a fifth source is found in the early creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–9. The early creed provides additional information concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. It tells of Peter’s meeting with the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5), the meeting between Jesus and James (1 Cor. 15:7), and his appearance to over 500 (1 Cor. 15:6). A sixth source is found in the sermon summaries of Peter in the book of Acts (Acts 2:14–41 and 3:12–26). A seventh source is found in the sermon summary of Stephen (especially in Acts 7:52 and 7:59–60). Finally, an eighth source is found in the sermon summaries of Paul. In the first sermon summary of Paul, he even speaks of Jesus’s empty tomb (Acts 13:29). Max Wilcox has convincingly found numerous Semitisms within the sermon summaries in Acts 1–15 that are largely not found in the remainder of the book.[5] Thus, the sermons of these chapters stem from earlier summaries that predate the composition of the book of Acts. Since a good estimate of the dating of Acts is the mid-60s, then it can be said that these summaries are much earlier. The fact that they speak of the resurrection of Jesus provides one more reason to adopt it as a genuine event of history.

Extremely Early Testimony

The study into the early creeds of the NT is gaining steam. Though he may claim otherwise, NT scholar and self-professed atheist-leaning-agnostic Bart Ehrman wrote that Paul received the creeds (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:3–9) while in Jerusalem in AD 35 or 36.[6] He goes on to say that “the traditions [Paul] inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death.”[7] Since the early creeds wholeheartedly affirm Jesus’s literal bodily resurrection, then this provides firm evidence that the earliest disciples believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Paul’s sermon summary also affirmed the belief that the tomb of Jesus was empty, as noted previously. With many, if not the majority, of the early creeds, we are talking about them circulating just a few months to a few years after Jesus’s crucifixion.[8] The creeds found in the Pauline epistles stemmed from the information Paul obtained from his interaction with the Jerusalem Church a couple of years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18). He spent two weeks with Peter and James learning about the teachings and doctrines of Christ. As C. H. Dodd notes, “we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.”[9] Thus, the proclamation that Jesus had risen from the dead came very early from the place where Jesus had been crucified. The details from the early sermon summaries of Acts and the creeds in Paul’s epistles make for a full and compelling case for the early preaching of the resurrection. When pieced with the first argument, it is difficult to find any other explanation outside of the fact that Jesus literally rose from the dead.

Unique Early Eschatological Christology

Finally, it has been observed that the earliest Christology is the highest Christology.[10] Additionally, early Jesus traditions endorse the idea that Jesus spoke of an eschatological figure who would usher in the kingdom of God. This eschatological figure is known as the Son of Man. The Son of Man arguably constructs the Christological core of Q—a theoretical Gospel that precedes the canonical Gospels.[11] Part of this early tradition includes Jesus’s comment that as “Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:40).[12] The Son of Man figure is almost exclusively found in the teachings of Jesus. Thus, this was a unique teaching of Jesus. Not only does the Son of Man figure connect with Jesus being God’s regent who brings God’s kingdom to earth, but it also speaks of his glorification which relates to his resurrection. Therefore, early Jesus preaching of the resurrection was remembered and preserved by the early disciples because of Jesus’s literal fulfillment of this unique and unexpected promise.

Conclusion

Some of these arguments may be new to you and some may not. Some of these aspects will be further fleshed out in my pending dissertation. Nonetheless, the unique and unexpected nature of the resurrection, the early preaching of the resurrection, multiple sources, and Jesus’s early eschatological identification with the resurrection all speak strongly to the probability that Jesus literally rose from the dead on the first Easter Sunday. My hope is that these arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, in addition to the classic arguments, strengthen your faith and offer you hope that there is a life beyond this mere mortal existence.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

Notes

[1] That is, providing I successfully defend my dissertation.

[2] Josephus contends that the Pharisees were so loved, and the Sadducees were so despised that the Sadducees would adopt certain notions from the Pharisees to find favor with the populace. Josephus, Antiq. 18.15–17.

[3] N. T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003), 205.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1965), 171.

[6] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2012), 131.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2^nd ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 266.

[9] C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, 2^nd ed (London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1944), 16.

[10] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), x, 235.

[11] For a full discussion of the issues concerning this topic, see John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2000), 388–395.

[12] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scriptures come from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3Mwb6bS

April 27, 2022/by Guest

“Being Good” Isn’t Enough For Salvation

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

The point of Christian apologetics is to “defend” the faith, and the point of the faith is to proclaim the good news of salvation to the world. Salvation, naturally enough, means saving, and a person only needs saving when he is in some peril. But ask many people today what peril they are in: they may tell you they’re worried about the state of the economy or inflation, or about the rising crime rates across the country, or about difficulties they might be having at home. It’s doubtful that they will throw in that they’re also concerned about the ultimate destiny of their soul, or that they wish they could be sure that they will spend eternity in God’s presence in the company of those they have loved here.

Why is that? Why are so many people today so confident that their soul does not need salvation? Though there are an increasing number of atheists, most people still recognize that there is a God who created them and all there is around us. Nonetheless, though fallen away from the faith they once knew, they do not seem worried about how God will one day judge them. Most often, if pressed, the modern secularist will provide a variation of: “Look, I’m a good person, after all, and God will judge me accordingly. There’s nothing for me to be worried about.”

There are dozens of definitions of “good” but for our purposes, let’s assume that most people mean “good” as something along the lines of “morally excellent, virtuous or righteous.” God presumably will tally all the morally excellent, virtuous or righteous deeds they have done in their lives, and this will tip the “scales of justice” in favor of entry into heaven.

But this analogy, upon reflection, actually provides scant reassurance. After all, a scale is only used if there is something to be placed on the other side, something against which the one side is weighed or measured. If a “good“ deed tips the balance in one direction, then failing to perform such a deed, or worse yet acting in ways that are decidedly not good, moves the needle in the other direction. Most people would agree that acting in a “selfish“ manner, i.e. making decisions that benefit only oneself and not the others in one‘s life, is not a “good“ way to act. But selfishness is part of the human condition. Parents see it in their young children, and most parents try to move children away from selfishness into more altruistic types of behavior. Add to that the times that we are not simply failing to do good but are intentionally doing wrong, without caring about the harm our actions may bring to others. Seen from this perspective, we have a real problem, for God is all-seeing and all-knowing. He lives eternally and sees all that we have ever thought or done; the things we may view as in our distant past remain in his eternal present. For anyone engaging in a clear-eyed and rational assessment of the situation, there is real cause to be concerned that the scale upon which we are being measured will quickly tip against us.

Let’s approach this with a modern example. Repeated studies tell us that an increasing percentage of the American population is overweight or obese. Health experts consistently warn of the many negative consequences that can attach to excessive weight, ranging from greater risk of serious health consequences from Covid to various types of illnesses and cancers. While some involuntary factors may contribute to obesity, this unhealthy lifestyle does still involve the repeated choice to eat to excess. I suspect no one starts out in life wanting to tip the scales against himself by choosing gluttony as a lifestyle. More likely, the end result is the product of many small decisions, played out repeatedly over the course of time. Indeed, it is difficult to fight the human capacity for self-deception. We ignore the evidence of our eyes, and of the scale, as we continue to feel “pretty good” about ourselves and the choices we make. We applaud ourselves for skipping dessert or starting a diet, all the while ignoring the bulging beltline that displays the direction in which the scale is tilting.

So too, it seems, with eternal things. We applaud ourselves for donating to charity, or volunteering at the soup kitchen. We give ourselves a pat on the back for each time we keep our temper in check. We laud ourselves for our sense of tolerance and enlightened thinking and surround ourselves with people who feel and think the same. In so doing, we focus only on the one side of the scale, neglecting to remember the many times we fell short of the mark…or worse, engaged in intentional bad behavior.

Banking on our ability to keep the scale tipped in our favor – on the side of “good” outweighing bad – simply fails to consider how a perfect God views our behavior. Like battling obesity through diet and exercise, the struggle is incremental. We may in fact do much that is good and worthy of praise. But like the defendant in an earthly court, the misdeed that has brought him before the court isn’t ignored when the defendant seeks to impress the judge with the many good deeds he has performed in his life. The point of the sentencing, on a finding of guilt, is to attach the appropriate consequence to the misbehavior in question. Standing before a perfect God and asking him to forget our misdeeds because we also happened to have done some good in our lives will be similarly unavailing. How does one go about impressing a judge who has both set the standard of perfection and is Himself perfect in every conceivable way?

The good news of course is that the One who made the scale, and who will do the judging, has given us the means to put the scale back in balance. This first requires us to see ourselves clearly enough to accept that we cannot meet God’s standard of perfection on our own. When Jesus took our sins upon himself on that cross two thousand years ago, he provided the means for us to become reconciled with God, to be “perfected” so that we can be ready and worthy to stand in the presence of a perfect being. It is Jesus who does the work of salvation, not us and our meager efforts at being “good.”

Trying to do good is a laudable goal. Sadly, too often today it is in short supply. But doing “good” isn’t going to be enough when that someday comes, as it will for each of us, that we meet our Maker.

Why Am I A “Sinner” And Why Do I Need To Be Forgiven?

Apologetics for Parents, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Here’s a question I got recently: “It has always bothered me that I am a sinful human. None of my good efforts, leading a good life can deter sin. I was born with sin and I have to be forgiven? I don’t get that. Why am I a ‘sinner’ and why do I need to be forgiven?” This is a difficult question to answer, especially when it comes from a genuine, good-hearted person. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a “sinner.” For the most part, all of us try to be kind, nice, and loving. We’re not serial killers, or bank robbers, or child molesters, or even shady politicians. It seems unfair to call someone a sinner — especially when you also seem to be saying that they were born to be that way.

There is a unique Christian solution to this dilemma. I’d like to offer three things to keep in mind when you think about it:

Exchange the Word “Sinner” with “Rebel”

I think part of the problem is that “sin” is a religiously loaded word. Yes, we are sinners, but the word conjures images of angry preachers demeaning our character and yelling from the pulpit that we need to “repent!” It all just sounds so judgmental and archaic. But the simple fact is that every one of us has done wrong things, no matter how small we think they are. We have all lied, cheated, stolen things, or mistreated other people. We have all been angry, jealous, or unfair to someone in our lives. It’s part of being human. So, if we have all done these things, it’s not unfair to acknowledge it. It’s just an observation about our common human nature.

The problem is that every time we do one of these things, we are violating an objective standard of moral goodness that we all recognize and should be trying to live our lives by. All of us realize this But, we do these kinds of things anyway. Every single human being who has ever lived is therefore a rebel in the same way. So, exchange the word “sinner” with “rebel.” Both are accurate, but rebel sounds less judgmental.

Use a Different Standard for Comparison

Instead of comparing ourselves to the bad actors in the world and seeing ourselves as pretty decent folks, we need to measure our rebellious actions against the standard we are actually violating. That standard is the perfect moral character of God. Nobody likes being told they’re a “sinner,” but when we change our mindset to realize our rebellion is against a perfect God, it puts things in a different perspective.

Imagine an artist’s masterpiece with a tiny flaw. Someone erases an eyeball on the Mona Lisa or vandalizes it with a single drop of bright yellow paint. Yes, the flaw is tiny. But no matter how small it is, you can’t help but see it. A tiny corruption in a masterpiece ruins the whole thing.

The Unique Christian Solution

If the standard is perfection, then any violation of that standard, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, creates an infinite separation between us and that perfection. Think of it as an infinitely wide canyon where we are on one side and God is on the other. Every religion offers a solution to crossing the divide, but Christianity’s solution is unique.

There are three possible responses to bridging the canyon we create when we rebel against God’s perfect moral standard.

Pretend the bridge isn’t there. This is basically the solution of the eastern and new age religions. People, and pain, and suffering, and rebellion are all just illusions. There is no need to build a bridge across a divide that doesn’t even exist. But it does make one wonder why we all seem to recognize our rebellious behavior if it’s just an illusion.
We can build the bridge ourselves. This is the idea that we can fix the mend by doing nice things to make up for the bad stuff we’ve done. Some call this a “works-based” theology, where we “work” our way back into God’s good graces. This is the solution offered by every other theistic religion (Judaism, Islam, Mormonism etc.). The problem with that is that the gap we’re tying to mend is infinite. We can work all we want but no human being is going to be able to build a bridge across an infinitely wide chasm.
God can build the bridge for us. What makes Christianity unique is that we don’t have to build the bridge. God builds it for us. It was the reason he came to Earth. He is the bridge between God and man. His suffering and death on the cross was the infinite payment required to make up for our rebellion. His resurrection sealed the deal.

All we have to do is acknowledge the fairly obvious fact that we are all rebels when we compare ourselves to the proper standard — then let God build us a bridge.

Norman L. Geisler: A Student’s Tribute

Atheism, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Huffling

I first heard about Dr. Norman L. Geisler when I was in high school. I bought his When Skeptics Ask. I glossed over it but thought it was beyond me. During my senior year of college, my wife and I decided to move back to my native Charlotte after graduation and study apologetics under Dr. Geisler at Southern Evangelical Seminary. Before making the move, we visited the seminary. While sitting in the registrar’s office, Dr. Geisler walked by, and I was star struck. After the tour, Dr. Doug Potter introduced us to Dr. Geisler. I was so nervous. He asked if we had lunch plans. I got even more nervous. We said no, and he asked if we would have lunch with him. Of course, we said yes. On the way out of the building he asked if I would drive as his car was in the shop. Even more nervous.

We went to a place called Wolfgang Puck (which is no longer there). I asked what he recommended and he said the butternut squash soup. So, I got that. Let me tell you, it was awful! Between the nervousness and the bad taste, I just couldn’t eat. However, after a while my nerves calmed, and he noticed I wasn’t eating. He asked if I didn’t like the soup, and I replied no (feeling badly). “Here, have some of my sandwich,” he said. Norman Geisler gave me half of his sandwich! I felt so bad. However, that is the kind of man he was. To be such a rock star in the world of evangelical apologetics, philosophy, theology, and biblical studies, he was such a humble man. That was something that I would notice for years to come.

As a student I took several classes from him, including Intro to Apologetics, several theology courses, a philosophy course, and the Problem of Evil. Of course, everyone knows he was a scholarly man. With over 100 books to his name, and I don’t know how many articles and presentations, he had a profound impact on the evangelical community. In fact, his impact was felt in many more circles than that. I have heard several people outside of evangelicalism, such as Ed Feser, and even outside of Christianity, such as Michael Ruse, praise him for his scholarship and care.

I have learned many things from Dr. Geisler. Having read several of his books, taken several classes, and co-taught with him, several characteristics stick out to me.

First, he was as logical as Spock. He could take a complicated argument (or an incoherent mess), and explain it to anyone in the most logical fashion, removing all unnecessary emotion. This is extremely important in issues of philosophy and apologetics when an issue can be convoluted or overly emotional. Second, he was a wizard at debating. Having seen several of his debates and discussions with unbelievers, he was a force to be reckoned with. Third, he was very caring of his students. He went out of his way to help however he could. He didn’t just talk the talk, he walked the walk. I remember him taking time to help me with my application to be an Air Force chaplain. I had to answer questions that I didn’t even understand what was being asked, let alone how to answer. He was patient and helpful. My wife was always amazed at how he remembered her name with over 50 students in a class and often asked for updates since the last time he had chatted with her even if it had been months prior. Fourth, and this is possibly what he is known best for, he was a bulldog at safeguarding evangelical issues such as inerrancy, the classical view of God, and the bodily resurrection of Christ.

His grace as a teacher didn’t stop with him being my professor. I was fortunate and honored to be able to teach a few classes with him. He treated me with grace and respect, even though I was very much his weaker assistant professor. He was never too busy to stop and say hello and see how things were going.

We can take the following lessons from our fellow servant of Christ: Be knowledgeable Christians. We have to know what we believe and why, and be prepared to defend it. We have to understand our interlocutor’s argument if we want to evaluate it. We have to make the Bible and devotion to Christ our first and foremost goal in life. It is not simply about winning arguments; it is about winning people for Jesus. Last, we have to be willing to serve others. We must live the servant life, as Christ and Dr. Geisler did.

Why Good Friday is the Best News Ever

Culture CrossExamined, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Frank Turek

Despite intense personal and political division, we all agree on one thing: something is terribly wrong with this world. Pain, suffering, injustice, and death affect us all at some point because we live in a broken world. And we live in a broken world because we are all personally broken.

Who hasn’t committed any moral wrongs? (If you claim you haven’t, you just committed a moral wrong—lying!) The truth is we are all fallen. While we hate the evil done by others, we rarely notice the evil we do. We may call our political opponents hypocrites, but we don’t even live up to our own standards much less God’s. None of us are perfect. We are all guilty of something.

It’s only when we admit our guilt can we fathom the liberating and eternal implications of Good Friday. That’s when the innocent and perfect God-man took the punishment you and I deserve on Himself so we could be forgiven of our moral wrongs and reconciled to God.

“Why do we need to be forgiven and reconciled to God?” you ask. “Can’t God just grade on a curve?”

No, because God is an infinitely just Being. If He didn’t punish moral wrongs, then He wouldn’t be the infinite standard of justice. We know this standard of justice exists because without it we couldn’t even recognize any of the injustice we complain about—anything wrong in our society or any evil that has been done to us personally. Injustice can’t exist unless justice exists, but justice can’t exist unless God exists. Without God as the moral standard every behavior would just be a matter of opinion—even murder, rape and child abuse!

Thankfully, God is also the infinite standard of love which compels Him to find a way to allow unjust people like you and me to go unpunished. He does that by punishing Jesus of Nazareth—who volunteers for the mission—in our place.

“The Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give His live as ransom for many,” Jesus revealed (Mk. 10:45). Just before he went to the cross, Jesus also declared that there’s no greater love than “to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13).

On the original Good Friday 1,989 years ago, Jesus suffered and died not to turn us into nice people but forgiven people. Jesus isn’t merely a moral example like other religious leaders; Jesus is our substitute. Since we’ve already committed moral crimes, we can’t work our way to God by being a “good person”. Jesus was that perfectly good person in our place. He’s done all the work for us and offers His life for ours as a gift. When you accept His gift, you are not only forgiven but given the righteousness of Christ. You are a new creation adopted into the family of God by grace, apart from works (2 Cor. 5:17-21, Eph. 2:8).

Without grace we will each get justice. If you think about your life and every hidden thing you’ve ever done, do you really want justice from God? Justice is getting what you deserve. Grace is getting what you don’t deserve. The only way to avoid justice is to accept the grace Jesus provides by putting your trust in Him.

Accepting the sacrifice Jesus made on Good Friday liberates you from your past, present and future wrongs by making forgiveness and eternal life possible (John 3:16). That’s why Good Friday is truly “Good”. In fact, it’s the best news ever.

5 Reasons the Resurrection of Jesus is NOT a Copy of Ancient Pagan Myths

3. Are Miracles Possible?, CrossExamined, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

We are coming up on a time of year when the resurrection of a virgin-born child whose followers called the “Good Shepherd” and “Messiah” is celebrated. He had twelve disciples, performed miracles, and sacrificed himself for the peace of the world. He was buried in a tomb only to rise from the dead three days later. His followers went on to celebrate his resurrection every year, and this celebration eventually became what we call “Easter.

Think I’m talking about Jesus?

Nope. I’m talking about Mithras.

This is a common claim that is made by skeptics all over popular media, the internet, and even in some universities. The only problem—it’s simply not true. According to Mithraic tradition, Mithras was born out of solid rock (I guess it counts if the rock was a virgin?) His birth was celebrated on December 25th, but Christians already knew that wasn’t the real date of Christ’s birth. There is no evidence that he had twelve disciples, sacrificed himself for world peace, or that he was called “Good Shepherd” or “Messiah.” Many mythological characters were thought to be miracle workers (so maybe they can have that one), but there is no evidence he ever even died—which makes his “resurrection” a wee bit of a dilemma.

Church Father Tertullian wrote about Mithraic believers acting out resurrection stories, but this was well after the time of the New Testament. So, if there are a couple of similarities between Jesus and Mithras, it could be that Mithraic believers copied the Christians….rather than the other way around.

Mithras isn’t the only pagan myth that Christians are accused of copying. Although most scholars are agreed that no such “dying and rising gods” existed before Christ,[1] here are 5 reasons the resurrection of Jesus could NOT be a copycat. (These 5 points are my summary of this 5 part video series by Dr. Michael Licona.)

1. Ancient myths about dying and rising gods were usually tied to agricultural cycles.

When I was a little girl I remember asking someone why there are thunder and lightning. I was jokingly told thunder meant either that God was clapping his hands or maybe the angels were bowling in heaven. In the ancient world, people would describe things like the change of seasons, drought, and rain in a similar way…to their children.

Imagine an ancient Egyptian little boy asking his mom why it hadn’t rained in a while. The mom might tell him the story of the storm god Ba’al who was swallowed by his brother Mot, the god of death and the underworld. When the mother of the two gods was able to convince Mot to let his brother go, it would rain again—thus explaining the cycle of rain.

Unlike pagan myths, which were annual events going back to the distant past, the resurrection of Jesus was a one-time occurrence. It was reported as a recent event that happened within the lifetimes of the people who claimed to witness it—and it was not connected to agricultural cycles.

2. The earliest Christians were devout Jews who were highly sensitive to Jewish law and traditions.

First century Christians were constantly debating things related to the law. Should Jewish men maintain the temple purification rites? Should Gentile men be circumcised? Should Christians eat meat sacrificed to idols? These are the types of problems they took very seriously and went to great lengths to solve.

Bottom line—it’s absurd to conclude that people who were pious Jews, debating things as particular as whether or not Jewish and Gentile believers should even eat together—would borrow from pagan myths to create their own.

3. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

During the course of human history, similarities in stories and parallels in experience are not going to be hard to find. For example, we are all familiar with a plane that took off from Massachusetts one morning and flew into one of the tallest skyscrapers in New York City between the 78th and 80th floors, killing everyone on the plane. You are probably thinking of the horrifying terrorist attack of 911 that forever changed our country. However, I’m actually referring to the B-52 that flew into the Empire State Building in 1945.

Although these two tragedies share some eerie similarities, there is no causal connection between them. Likewise, no causal connection has been shown between the resurrection of Jesus and pagan myths.

4. The comparisons are just not that impressive.

Much like the Mithras example given above, most of the pagan parallels are not that persuasive, once we get past the rhetoric and actually examine the evidence. The most comparable pagan myth that preceded the life of Jesus might be the story of a demi-god named Asclepius. Even so, the only thing that is really similar is that he, like Jesus, was known to be a healer, and according to the myth, raised someone from the dead.

Most of the pagan comparisons rely on taking bits and pieces from different ancient myths and figures that pre-dated Jesus and combine them with some real people who post-dated Him. The lengths one must go to in order to piece together a composite figure of Jesus is a bit of a stretch, and frankly, just not that impressive.

5. The abundance of myths doesn’t cancel out the evidence for the real resurrection of Jesus.

If you go to Barnes & Noble and take a look at the section for romance fiction, you will find cover after cover of helpless women trying to solve the biggest problem in their lives: which handsome and gallant hero will they choose? It’s a tired formula that borders on the ridiculous—but just because tons of romance fiction is out there—it doesn’t negate the idea that real romantic love exists.

The truth is that there are so many silly romantic novels because romance seems to be an insatiable desire of the human condition.

Life in the Roman Empire was brutal, with most people living in poverty, and given such a society, people were naturally looking for hope. They wanted to know that evil would be punished and goodness would be rewarded and that there would be life after death where justice would be done. Like the impetus behind modern romance fiction, this is a common desire of the human condition.

We should expect that stories would emerge that would satisfy this hope for immortality. This doesn’t mean that Jesus actually rising from the dead is fictitious or impossible. If we have good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (which we do), there’s no reason to reject it simply because there may be some similarities in fictional stories.

This Easter, we don’t celebrate Mithras or some other impotent figure of an ancient fairy tale. We celebrate the true and living Savior who conquered death and the grave to save us and reconcile us to God. I pray this post helps you confidently agree with the angel at Jesus’ tomb by saying: He is risen!

Notes:

[1] Lund University Professor and Biblical Scholar T. N. D. Mettinger wrote, “The consensus among modern scholars—nearly universal—is that there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century.” (Cited in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007, 160-61.)

D.O.U.B.T.S.: An Evidential Filter For Miracle Claims

4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

When it comes to miracles, Christians are often accused of special pleading. We’re quick to accept Christian miracle claims, but we suddenly turn into Richard Dawkins when it comes to miracle claims made by other religions. Why should skeptics start investigating the resurrection of Jesus when we don’t give other miracles the time of day? The truth is that there are dozens of different religions and thousands of miraculous claims out there. So how can the Christian hope to use miracles as an argument for their faith?

But the fact that there are miracle claims in other religions doesn’t require us to dismiss all miracle claims out of hand. Nor is it necessary for us to be haplessly credulous about all historical miracle claims. There’s a middle way. Before examining miracle claims in detail, we can and should run them through a religiously-neutral evidential filter. Failure to pass through such a filter wouldn’t necessarily prove that the miracle didn’t occur, but it does give us reasons to doubt it. From there we can move on to more promising candidates and not waste our time.

So what filter do I have in mind? Dr. Tim McGrew proposed a 6-point DOUBTS filter in his debate with Zachary Moore. DOUBTS is a backronym because Dr. McGrew is a philosophy professor, and well, teachers can’t resist making backronyms. McGrew has co-written the chapter on The Argument from Miracles in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, as well as the entry for Miracles in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so he’s a bit of a subject matter expert here. Let’s take a look at his filter.

D – DISTANT EVENTS

For starters, the D in DOUBTS stands for distant events. When the first report of a miracle is made only at a significant distance from the alleged event, we have reasons to doubt. So for example, a 2nd-century Greek writer named Philostratus reports that Apollonius of Tyana worked all kinds of wonders. The problem is that many of these wonders often allegedly happened in India, while Philostratus was writing in Greece some 3500 miles away. This is like that socially awkward guy who claims he’s dating a really hot girl who no one has seen from Canada. We have reason to be skeptical.

O – OPINIONS ALREADY ESTABLISHED

The O in DOUBTS stands for opinions already established. When miracles confirm or affirm established opinions and prejudices, we have some reasons to be skeptical. So for example, we have reason to doubt Brigham Young’s claim that Joseph Smith walked house-to-house healing a large group of his followers from malaria while living in Illinois. Young was Smith’s predecessor and had already recognized him as God’s special prophet. There are few details in the reports, and the people who preserved them weren’t initially suspicious. They might have credulously latched onto any flimsy claim made about Smith.

U – UNCERTAIN EVENTS

Next up is U – uncertain events. Granting that the event really happened, if it can be explained without implausibility that it was a natural event, we have reasons to be skeptical. If certain saints were said to levitate but clever illusionists can replicate this trick, chances are it wasn’t a miracle. Or for another example, the Talmud tells us about Honi the Circle Drawer. When rain did not come well into the winter, Honi drew a circle in the dust and sat inside it. He then told God that he would not move until it rained. And what do you know–it began to rain. Yet I think we’re all pretty experienced with rain and how it comes and passes. While this could be a miraculous answer to prayer, this also could’ve just been a coincidence and a fully natural occurrence. It’s an uncertain event and nothing on the same level as, say, someone being raised from the dead.

B – BELATED REPORTS

Moving on to B – belated reports. When the first report of a said miracle comes long after the event, we have some serious reasons to be skeptical. Let’s go back to our buddy Apollonius of Tyana. Philostratus wrote his biography 100 years after Apollonius was dead. That’s obviously a long time and any alleged eyewitnesses would’ve long been dead. Or we have the resurrection stories about St. Nicolas. Reportedly there was a horrible famine, an evil butcher lured three children into his house, killed them and pickled them. This baddy was planning to try and pass them off as cured ham. Gross stuff. Saint Nicolas saw through this scheme and allegedly resurrected the kids by making the sign of the cross. The problem is this story was first circulated in Medieval times, hundreds of years after St. Nick was dead.

T – TRIVIAL MIRACLES

Let’s now move on to the T in the DOUBTS filter – Trival miracles. These would be reports of miracles that are unconnected to any significant purpose. They make no real difference to our lives. The basic idea is captured by the Roman poet Horace when he wrote: “Let a god not intervene unless it’s a knot worthy of a god’s untying.” You’ll often hear skeptics ask crazy things like: “well, if I told you that I have a friend who flew around the room by flapping his arms, died, rose again and turned my sofa into a donkey all in one evening, would you believe me?” Well, why would God be behind something like that? What deep questions about our destiny does this answer, or what striking doctrines would this confirm? Even if such a story happened, what claim does this supposed miracle make on my life? At the most, this flying man might cause me to conclude that the world is a stranger place than I initially imagined. Such an event serves no significant purpose.

S – SELF-SERVING MIRACLES

Finally, we’ve reached the S in the DOUBTS filter. The S stands for self-serving miracle claims. When a supposed miracle serves obvious human motivations like sex, political power, greed, a lust for fame then there’s a huge reason to doubt such a miracle claim. Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba allegedly miraculously manifested clocks and watches but was accused of sexual abuse, money laundering, among other things. The Mormon founder Joseph Smith had ambitions to be the President of the United States and married over 40 different women. There are reasons to think there’s something fishy going on with his so-called revelations.

A PERSONAL CRITERION I’D ADD – V – VAGUENESS.

Granted, this takes away the coolness of the backronym but I’d add vague reports to the criteria. So for example, after apostatizing from the Mormon church and denying that Joseph Smith was a prophet, Fanny Stenhouse recorded an experience in which she said she saw Smith miraculously heal an old woman named Sister Armstrong who had been bedridden for years. In her account, Stenhouse says that this was not a fake healing. However, she attributes it to “animal magnetism” and not directly associated with God. But that’s all we have is something rather brief in her biography, there’s not a lot of details in the report. We’d have to know a lot more about what was wrong with the old woman, why she was bedridden, and what Smith did to believe it was a genuine miracle. It’s a vague report.

I think this is where we need to be careful as Christians, too. If we just rely on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 to carry the load for our resurrection apologetic, we give vague evidence that isn’t detailed enough to warrant justified belief. Brief and confusing episodes are arguably compatible with 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as I’ve argued here. We need the detailed, multisensory, time-extended experiences that we read about in the Gospels to make a strong case.

IS THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS WORTHY OF OUR INVESTIGATION?

Remember that any miracle claim that fails on one or more of these criteria might still be true, but these give us a reasonable basis to not investigate them. I’d argue that the resurrection of Jesus doesn’t run afoul of any of the criteria. Without the aid of a miracle, crucified and buried dead men tend to stay dead. It’s not an uncertain event. The resurrection was proclaimed in the streets of Jerusalem, within weeks after the crucifixion. The disciples stayed in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified (Galatians 2:1,9) even when the church came under heavy persecution. (Acts 7, 12)

For the disciples to preach this so soon after Jesus’ execution that their religious leaders set up was to invite the same type of persecution. They could have waited until things calmed down. But they did not. Peter shifted from denying Jesus to boldly proclaiming his resurrection just 50 days after Jesus was murdered. (Acts 2:22-24). The enemies of Christianity had the means, motive, and opportunity to discredit the story. Jesus claimed that he was the Giver of eternal life, so there’s nothing trivial about this claim.

For more details, see this video:

THE TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY?

The skeptic might then ask: aren’t these criteria then a bit self-serving for Christians? As a believer, Dr. McGrew obviously believes the resurrection passes this filter. So isn’t this an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy? For those of you who don’t know, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is where one cherry-picks a data cluster to suit your argument, or finds a pattern to fit a presumption. I don’t believe that’s the case here.

For starters, this criteria cuts against miracle claims that I’d accept. Since I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, I accept that Balaam’s donkey spoke. But I am not asking a skeptic to start their historical investigation there and I think they’re not unreasonable if they’re skeptical that such an event happened. Remember that these criteria are religiously neutral. They’re obviously sensible and keep one from wasting their time chasing after unpromising claims. Each criteria reduces the probability that a genuine miracle occurred, so a skeptic should like them. If one wants to add to this criteria, I’m all ears. I’d personally add that in the case of modern miracles where the person is still alive, medical data would be something I’d like to see.

These criteria should be embraced by the skeptic because it gives them the opportunity to say that they’re not dogmatically rejecting all miracle claims out of hand. I hope this helps show that Christians aren’t necessarily guilty of special pleading. Maybe we reject miracle claims in other religions because they’re often poorly attested.